The Wilder Side of Sex

Smithsonian Zoogoer ^ | May 2004 | John Tidwell

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.
Long- time list members get all pings, but can request "evo-only." New additions usually get evo-pings only, but can specify "all pings."]

[Agnes Heep]

I say we all start urinating on fire hydrants, drinking out of the toilet, and licking our genitals in the middle of the street. It's only natural.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[StriperSniper]

.

[billorites]

"a cynical bed-hopping firm-breasted Rabelaisian bit of sea food that makes Fanny Hill look like a dead Pope... "

I love it!

[js1138]

Another science thread hijacked by politics.

[Physicist]

“Sex is not about reproduction,” he writes. ... It is about getting your genes into the next generation

OK, he lost me there.

[donh]

"Invertebrates take the prize for the most sexes, genders, sex organs, and acrobatic means of coitus."

Nope. It's fungi, hands down, with up to 11 discrete sexual genders to a species so far recorded, last I heard.

[Dimensio]

What are you talking about?

I think that he's pointing out that non-human mammals only engage in same-sex sexual activity when there are no females (or males, in the case of an all-female group) present.

This is, of course, false, but it seems to be the premise of his argument.

[Dimensio]

Natural, when used as a means of condemning or supporting anything, is a meaningless buzzword.

ANYTHING that occurs within the natural universe is "natural". Fish changing their gender is "natural". Humans undergoing hormone therapy and surgery to change their gender is also natural, unless you're going to point out a supernatural process that occurs during the procedure.

Stabbing someone in the heart with a four-inch knife is "natural". The blade is ultimately composed of matter that was found in the natural universe, and both the victim and the assailant are also entites within the natural universe. No supernatural elements are involved, therefore it is natural.

Natural just refers to things that occur in the natural universe. It is not a means of assessing moral value. You cannot deem an action as good, bad or indifferent simply because you claim that it is natural or unnatural.

Now, what's this about gender-shifting fish?

[donh]

but human homosexuality runs completely counter to the basic premise of his argument: that sexuality is flexible in nature "to solve the problem of how to survive and make as many babies as possible."

This is a pretty shallow assumption. The problem is to get your genes successfully into the future. That may not necessitate "making as many babies as possible" at every turn. If you are related to someone you gather resources for, aren't you contributing to the survival of some of your genes?

If nature is so dead set against non-breeders, how do you account for grandparents living past their reproductive years? Shouldn't natural selection eliminate them? What good are they if they can't breed?

In point of fact, there are many examples in nature of genetically useful non-breeding choices. Wolves under resource pressure, for example, change from mated pairing into alpha pair only, with the females grounding their pudenda, and the males turning queer, making more resources available for the alpha pair's kits. One wonders how social ants and bees could possibly exist if the every-gene-for-himself strategy is universal. How did solitary bees give up their breeding rights to a queen? Ans: they turned queer, just like wolves do--only for them, it became permanent.

[syriacus]

That may not necessitate "making as many babies as possible" at every turn.

Spy guy truly made a good point. The original article is about "unusual" methods of reproduction, not about babysitting. Human homosexuality is not a method of reproduction.

For the past couple billion years, plant and animal species have tried all sorts of ways to solve the problem of how to survive and make as many babies as possible. In that time, they evolved a mind-reeling array of solutions

I still want to know if Tidwell thinks we humans are supposed to reproduce by division, since planaria and starfish do that.

[Savage Beast]

The fungi might be the first runnerup, but the rhinestone tiara goes to homo sapiens, var. californiensis.

[donh]

Spy guy truly made a good point. The original article is about "unusual" methods of reproduction, not about babysitting. Human homosexuality is not a method of reproduction.

No, he did not. Making as many babies as possible is a good way to wipe out your environment. It is a good strategy for bacteria, since it's the only one they have. It is a sucky strategy for most creatures large enough to be seen with a microscope, who live in equilibrium with their environment. If it were a good strategy for humans, we'd have quintuplets every few weeks. The more you live in a stable, long-term sustainable environment, the more the payback for having a few, high investment offspring, as opposed to a lot of low investment offspring. You only have so many resources to invest, and having tons of young isn't necessarily the best investment.

Homosexuality causes resources to concentrate on fewer young, and that's an important strategy to have in your back pocket when an environment with which you are in balance grows precipitously worse--having the entire wolf pack starve trying to support an overburden of kits is not a good plan--wolves are a sterling example of how this strategy works, and why it's a non-trivial contribution to wolf pack survival. Having your nephew survive is better for your genes than having no one in your tribe survive.

I'd suggest a book on this subject: "Why Big, Fierce Animals are Rare". If you'd like to think about it a little harder.

[donh]

I said:

"seen with a microscope"

when I meant:

"seen without a microscope"

[syriacus]

You have made some good points.

But Spy Guy was actually referring to the point that the author was discussing. The point of the author's article was, "There are unusual methods of reproduction."

Human homosexual sex is not a method of reproduction.

Human homosexual sex adds not one individual to the human population.

[syriacus]

I'd suggest a book on this subject: "Why Big, Fierce Animals are Rare". If you'd like to think about it a little harder.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd love to read the book if I ever get to the bottom of my current "to read" list.

The title brings to mind the title of a Haldane essay I loved, "On Being the Right Size."

As I tried to make clear up above, your argument is with Tidwell, not with me. Tidwell is the one who wrote...

For the past couple billion years, plant and animal species have tried all sorts of ways to solve the problem of how to survive and make as many babies as possible. In that time, they evolved a mind-reeling array of solutions.

You can see Tidwell's original words in his second paragraph.

[donh]

Human homosexual sex adds not one individual to the human population.

By the same token, despite being the vast majority of all ants, being a worker ant adds "not one individual" to the ant population. Yet ants thrive. Go figure.